Today, On 18th August, In the cash-for-jobs case, the Supreme Court ordered the release of former West Bengal minister Partha Chatterjee, observing, “Prolonged incarceration would amount to a travesty of justice,” after noting that key witness statements had already been recorded.
The Delhi High Court has ordered a retrial in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots case, observing that the material on record shows several lapses in the investigation and the conduct of trials, requiring fresh judicial scrutiny for justice.
Today, On 8th August, Supreme Court stays Madhya Pradesh High Court order in ancestral property dispute involving Nawab Hamidullah Khan’s estate, giving major relief to Saif Ali Khan and family. The case will be reconsidered after the Court issued a notice on the petition.
The Allahabad High Court granted interim relief to SP MP Zia Ur Rehman Barq by staying proceedings in the Sambhal violence case. The court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to respond within three weeks.
Delhi High Court allows the release of Udaipur Files despite a plea by accused Mohammed Javed. Court held no irreparable harm would be caused and upheld artistic freedom.
Supreme Court says Sessions Court can summon a person even if police did not name them in chargesheet, if enough evidence is present. This is allowed right at the start of the trial under Section 193 CrPC.
The Karnataka High Court granted relief to comedian Ratan Ranjan in the case over a video showing Rahul Gandhi’s image on a sanitary pad, directing police not to file a chargesheet against him or co-accused Arun Kumar.
In the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots case, a key eyewitness told a Delhi court that it is “wrong to suggest my testimony is false and fabricated,” denying claims of falsely implicating Congress leader Jagdish Tytler.
Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on Tasleem Ahmed’s bail plea in the 2020 riots conspiracy case. The Court stressed that facts, not just delays, determine bail under UAPA.
The Madras High Court directed Tamil Nadu police to protect the identities of sexual offence victims, prohibiting their disclosure in FIRs. This order, prompted by a previous mistake, emphasizes serious consequences for violations. The court reminded law enforcement of existing legal obligations regarding victim confidentiality under Indian law and Supreme Court guidelines.
